Skip to main content

Parliamentary Elections and General Elections

People vote for all sorts of reasons.  Some vote as to who they want to be the local MP.  Others vote as to who they wish to see as the prime minister and there can be combinations in between.

The postal votes in Yardley which were cast about two weeks before polling day gave me 40%, but on the night I only got just over 25%.  This has happened previously.

I had been for some time of the view that the attempt at equidistance from Labour and Conservative was likely to be problematic.   Once we had gone into coalition with the Conservatives we would lose support from people who were unhappy with the government.  Hence if we go into the general election saying we might put Labour in we run the risk of losing support the other way.

My personal view is that we should have campaigned for the continuation of the Lib Dem-Conservative coalition.  That would at least have had some certainty about it.  People tend to vote against risk.  It would also have been easier to argue in that we were presenting a case that we did the right thing in 2010 and intended to continue doing something like this.

Politicians over think about politics.  The voters in the end have to make relatively simple choices.  Do they vote for one person or another.   The "air war" and the debates on the TV about strategy have had strong impacts on the campaign in many elections.  This was like 1992 where I also lost in Yardley with a swing against me in the last week or two.

Those people who concentrate on the national perspective will then vote against the national government in the way that they see as being most effective.

That, in itself, may not have been sufficient to re-elect me in Yardley as Labour would still have got about 17,000 votes (41% of the electorate).   However, it would meant the many people swinging between me and the Tories or UKIP could have voted for me understanding that I was an anti-Labour candidate.  Frankly  I am of the view that Labour's proposals were such nonsense that it would have been impossible to get competent government out of the Labour leadership.

Such an approach, however, would not have seen us losing in so many seats nationally.

The party did consider what had happened in previous coalitions.  Wrongly the assumption was made that as long as the party itself remained united there would not be a problem.  Historically with a substantial deposit required it was difficult to put up alternative candidates.  These days, however, (rightly so) it is much easier so although the party may not split itself it does split from its supporters.

Which is what happened.

I have had an interesting 10 years as MP for Yardley.  I hope that my constituents believe that I have performed the function to an adequate standard.

Whatever electoral system is used parties have difficulties swapping their coalition preferences for exactly the reasons I have given above.  Perhaps now that lesson will be learnt rather than the consequences ignored.

Comments

Gareth Hardy said…
Very sorry you lost your seat John, you have been a great campaigner and constituency MP.

I agree that the party campaign direction was counter productive - i dislike the Conservatives, but a controlled Tory government seems a slightly better option than an incompetent Labour one.

Please don't give up or lose heart, 2020 will soon be upon us and i am sure you will win again.

Gareth
www.garethhardy.org

Popular posts from this blog

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).




Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men:

The Labour Candidate's Book Promotion Tour and Why It Matters

In the 2015 General Election the Labour Candidate criticised John Hemming for having an external interest and made a pledge that she would be a "Full Time MP for Yardley and my only other job will be mom & carer ...".  Here is a copy of that pledge:


Since that point she has been working on paid Television Programmes and has also written a book. John Hemming has made no secret of the fact that he chairs the board of the company he founded in 1983. This involves one meeting a month. When he was the MP for Yardley he was a full time MP and the Job of being MP for Yardley came first. The Labour candidate has reported 1,274 hours of work other than being an MP in the two years she has been elected and her income in the last year was over £131,000.

Ignoring the question as to how she reconciles that with her "pledge" the question is raised as to what extent her external activity conflicts with the role of Member of Parliament for Yardley. She is supposed to de…